Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 42

[Speaker 1]
Logic. Whoa. This sounds hard.

Oh, better focus. I still see some people trickling in. So just, you know, waiting as everybody joins.

But hello, everybody. Welcome. Hi.

Thanks. Hey, Geshe-la. Hi, Mr. Nicholas. Good morning. I'll find out when we do five minutes of this text whether it's good morning or not. It looks hard.

It's hard. Thank you so much, everybody, for tuning in. Welcome to today's Saturday episode of Win Song Tower.

Excited to be here. Excited to have you all here. Really grateful for all of who find this interesting and want to pay attention as we plow our way through these texts, these historical and incredible.

So if you haven't yet joined the Good Night Club, please join. We want you on our team. Helps us keep this thing going for, I don't know, 700 years or so.

So sign up. You're part of something very big. We're all part of something bigger than ourselves that is going to help the world immensely.

So then let's get down to it and do the thing that we do. Okay, I'm turning it over to Mr. Andrade. Hi, Geshe-la.

There he is. Hey. Hi, Adam.

Hi, Geshe-la. You look handsome. Is your, is Ava there?

No, she's, yeah, she's with Kate. Oh, man, she's getting beautiful. She sure is.

All right, so let's see. From our last class, we were kind of going over, well, this, actually, this, we didn't cover this in our last class, but it should be apparent from just having gone through my first book and then a couple of years of this book too. So when we're presenting Wrong Luke, how do we usually do it?

So when we present our own system, we do it by looking at three different things. And I was hoping that you guys could kind of give me that. Yeah, I don't know what you put in the chat when I was going to say definitions.

Yeah, that's one. Yeah, it doesn't have to be in the right order. Divisions?

Yeah. And what if I said, didn't shake? Oh, synonyms.

Synonyms. Thesaurus says it. Okay, so what argument did we spend the majority of last class refuting?

A bunk argument. We refuted it so well that it totally was knocked out of my head. Oh, something about good sense and wrong sense.

Yeah, it definitely was, Gin. You could rephrase it. Venerable Upala has it.

Good job. Yeah, so we spent the large part of our last class countering the belief that being a working thing doesn't necessarily mean being an actual object. And how does KDRIPJ...

As opposed to an idea. As opposed to an idea, yeah. Okay, so how does KDRIPJ qualify something as being an object considered by an accurate perception of ultimate and specifically of ultimate analysis?

I think it has to do with whether it ultimately performs a function. Yeah. Yeah.

Oh, yeah, here. Sorry, this shouldn't be in here. Yeah, something is an object considered by an accurate perception of ultimate analysis if it's an object considered by a direct accurate perception.

Oh, okay. And then you can infer from that that if you perceive something accurately, if you have a direct accurate perception of something in this school, it means that it's performing a function. Cool, yeah.

See how we could derive that then? Okay, that's what Maria said. So Kyab-Sel Mueh.

That's tough. That's really hard. Well, I don't know if I translated it correctly, so I'm hoping...

Hmm, I was wondering if I translated it correctly. I mean, is it like literally like the actual clarification of... Well, what's a Kyab-Sel?

What's a Kyab-Sel? I mean, if you were... Got it from the perspective of Tak-Rig.

Uh-huh. Is it a reason that disproves through Kyab-Sel Mueh basically through saying that something doesn't... Yeah, now what would Nuh usually imply?

Directly or actually? Yeah, or evidently, right? Oh, yeah, that's obvious.

Right? Yeah. So it's kind of a...

Yeah, so this is what we're trying to prove is obvious is what I put. I don't know. It can be more difficult than that, and it refers to a tenger, a sarcastic statement.

So if somebody says, all fruits are red, then you say, oh, take oranges. I guess they're red because they're a fruit. Okay, and then the kyab-as, if it's a fruit, it must be red.

That's the kyab. And then the selwa is the... The orange is red.

Okay, so it can refer to two parts of a sarcastic statement, and then it's a very difficult term. It's a necessity, the kyab-as, the necessity in a sarcastic statement. If something is a fruit, it must be red.

And then the drup je chuh, or what you're trying to prove, in a sarcastic statement, which is oranges are red. Okay, so it can... And then mu means obvious, yeah.

So we are very familiar with the three parts of a logical statement that have to be true for the statement to be true. But when you get to a sarcastic logical statement, which is in Sanskrit called a prasangika, the parts are named a little bit differently. Yeah, should I say like reductio ad absurdum?

It is, that's a prasangika, yeah. So take oranges, they must be red. Why?

Because they're fruits. Then that statement itself has its own components that have to be true for it to be true. To be a good sarcasm, some things have to be true.

If it's true that something is a fruit, it must be red. And it has to be true that the orange is red. Those are the two parts of a sarcastic statement.

And that's what he's talking about here, I think. And it's not easy, it's not easy. Yeah, so dun-dun-par, dun-che-nu-pa.

Ultimately, ultimately able to perform a function, as Ben said before. All right. Yeah, and I was, you know, when I was sitting there and thinking about this class, I was wondering, Adam, what's the difference between able to perform a function and ultimately able to perform a function?

Yeah, we spent a little time trying to suss that out for ourselves last class too. Yeah, yeah. I'm hoping you'll lead us a little bit further down that trail.

Yeah, I mean, sometimes you just have to think, you have to say to yourself, I hope they clarify this later, you know. I think this is in that category. He hasn't discussed why it's different between performing a function and ultimately performing a function.

He hasn't discussed the difference yet. But it might be significant, it might not, we'll see. Okay.

But your text is in a hard place, and the only way I got through it this week was I split every sentence into three pieces and tried to understand the first piece and then the second piece. Okay, okay, translation time. All right, and again, you know, just a quick question for you too.

I put the student translation thing here. Yeah. Of every section.

That's fine with me. I'm just afraid somebody's gonna say this is my translation and then... Yeah, is it that?

Yeah. That's totally the way to do it, Adam. That's awesome.

Yeah, well, you know, I'd been putting it at the, just at the beginning of the first kind of, the first big block that we would translate, but I think this will work. You can just poke your arm with a knife and put it in blood all over the paper, you know. Perfect.

Okay. If you say it isn't the case that being an actual thing means able to perform a knife. Actually, the first part means if something can perform a function, but it's not necessarily an actual thing in the world.

So, first put your mind, when you're doing Adam's text, go piece by piece. Jönkje Nupar. Something that performs a function.

Give me an example. This cup is holding my coffee. Okay.

Okay. Rang tsen means what, Adam? It's like an actual coffee cup.

Yeah, in the world. An actual thing in the world. It's not theoretical.

It's not an idea. It's not a concept. It's a real thing in the world.

And that's called rang tsen. So, he says, the other guy, somebody's saying, if something can do something, it must be an actual thing in the world. What do you think?

Sure, yeah, I would accept that. Yeah, and then he would say principles, like your body is impermanent. Okay, we had a meditation this morning.

Principles, or truths, or ideas, like my body is impermanent. Okay. Those are not actual things in the world.

Those are ideas in your mind. And those things are unchanging. Okay.

Ideas are unchanging. Concepts. Facts.

Facts are unchanging. Okay, cool. So, it cannot be an actual thing in the world.

All right. It's interesting. If it's an actual thing in the world, it should be changing.

In this school. Okay. If it's doing anything, it must be changing.

rang tsen yinpay ma kyab na Then the other guy said, somebody said, just because something is doing something, it doesn't mean it's an actual thing in the world. Somebody said, just because something is doing something, performative function, doesn't mean it's an actual thing in the world. Apparently the other guy said that.

Said something. And he's wrong, right? And we say, oh, ma kyab na.

Okay. If it's not the case, that if something is performing a function, it has to be an actual thing in the world, then we're probably going to give a counterexample. shel ja rang chi nyi sung ngeypay tak su dren chen nyu dang mi nyu chir shik gupay del mey du gyur ro We'll go to the end, okay?

Then it must be... del mey means unrelated. So Adam got this.

del mey means irrelevant, no connection to our discussion. del mey means no connection, right? ten del means when?

Dependent origination. del means no connection here. So del mey means totally irrelevant.

Why? Then it must be irrelevant to examine or to check whether something is dren chen nyupa or dren chen mi nyu. What's that mean, Adam?

That it's either able to form a function or it's not. Right. Then according to you it's irrelevant to check whether something is doing something or not doing something.

In order to establish tak su, in the middle of the sentence, in order to establish that there are only two kinds of things in the universe. And then he just says rang chi. And we have to add words here.

He said rang chi, which means ak jen. Ak jen, how can you establish ak jen if you don't look at functionality? What's ak jen?

Ak means actual thing in the world. Jen means a general principle. But he just gives us ak jen.

Rang chi. What's the full form? rang tsen dang chi tsen Yeah, rang tsen dang chi tsen.

Five syllables. He says rang chi And then good luck if you don't know what he's talking about. What's an ak jen?

It's probably some kind of thing you get on your feet if you walk in gyms or something. Okay. So he says, look, it must be...

When you're trying to figure out if something is a general truth or an actual object in the world, then is it useful or is it not useful? To discuss whether it does anything. What do you think?

If you're trying to decide whether something is a general concept or whether it's an actual object in the world, is it useful to examine whether it performs a function or not? Yes. It is, according to this.

If it performs a function, it's an actual thing in the world. If it exists but it doesn't perform a function, it might be a general truth. Okay.

Cool. All right. Okay, next sentence.

That was a terrible sentence for your teacher to give you. That's a 412. Okay, I will.

Can you read that one?

[Speaker 3]
Can you read?

[Speaker 1]
Yes, your translation is good, but let's go through it. So, dun che nyepa means what? It's able to perform a function.

Able to do something. Able to do something. Are actual things in the world, like coffee cups, able to perform a function?

Yes or no? Yes. Are ideas or concepts or general truths able to perform a function?

The sky is blue. Does that do anything? No.

The fact that the sky is blue doesn't do anything, okay? It's just a truth. Unchanging truth.

Truths are unchanging, okay? They can go out of existence, but they don't change as they go out of existence. Okay?

If this planet is destroyed, the sky won't be blue. But it didn't change. It just blinked out of existence.

Okay? Got it? Okay.

It didn't become something else. It just disappeared. So, dun dap bar.

Now he adds this word ultimately, and we don't know where he's going with that yet. Okay? We don't know why he's adding that.

What do you think is the difference between performing a function and ultimately performing a function? In his mind. What can you imagine is the difference?

Well, it could be as opposed to apparently performing a function. Which would imply it's not really performing a function. You see what I mean?

Could be that. We don't know yet. Actually, could it be potentially performing?

Yeah, you could say that also. Yeah, yeah. We don't know where he's going with this ultimately yet.

But he's been a little persistent in adding it. So, he must be setting up a trap for later. These guys are debaters.

So, if it's... Yeah. Dun dap bar dun chen nirpa yin na.

If something can perform a function ultimately, then it must be an actual thing in the world. Yes or no? In this school.

Yes. Yeah. Okay.

Then we say, if that's true, then ngunpo sok rang tsen mayinpa dun dap bar ngyel te. Then that would contradict. You would contradict where you accepted things like the color blue are not actual objects.

He must have said before that the color blue is not an actual thing in the world. It's not an actual object in the world. But that's contradictory because he says, I believe if something does something, then it's an actual thing in the world.

Okay? He said that. Then we say, what about blue?

And he says, no, it's not an actual thing in the world. That implies he believes that blue doesn't do anything. But blue can, for example, trigger a consciousness of it.

Blue can produce a consciousness. Yeah. Blue color of Stanley's shirt is producing a consciousness right now.

It's triggering something.

[Speaker 3]
All right?

[Speaker 1]
Can you say the same for any like lots of unchanging things that they could trigger? Now that's a question. We're getting there.

Tough question. Okay, let's go to the next sentence, Adam. As soon as someone asks a difficult question, you guys have to learn to move on to the next sentence.

Please read. Yeah, there's the kapsel nur. I still have a few doubts about it, but I'll give you my best shot.

ngum po chok chen means what, Adam? Consider the color blue. Yeah, consider the color blue.

So, kyur rang tsen yin bar ta, or kyur rang tsen yin bar ta? I'd say kyur rang tsen yin bar ta. Yeah, because we believe it.

When you believe it, you go up. When you're sarcastic, you go down. And we'll learn that in a few more years.

The best thing is to fudge it when you're kidding. You go, kyur rang tsen yin bar ta. Yeah, it is so, a rang tsen.

It is too, an actual object. Then you have to give your reason, right? kyur din dangpa dun chen nupay yinpey che, because it ultimately able to perform a function.

We still don't know where he's going with ultimately, okay? dun chen nupay yinpey che. Here's the very difficult part, okay?

Say, kyep sel ngu. Kyep sel ngu. So ngu here means obvious, as Adam translated.

The kyep is easy, okay? When you're looking for the necessity or the necessary relationship in the three relationships of a logical statement, you just take number three and say, if three, then two. If three, then two.

Take sound, it's changing because it was made. What's the kyep? If something's made, it must be changing.

If something's made, it must be changing. What is it here? If something ultimately performs a function, then it must be a real thing in the world.

So that kyep is easy, okay? I believe, okay, and I'm still working on it, that the sel is the first two parts of the statement. One plus two.

So kyep means if three, then two, okay? And I believe the sel is the duk je, is the duk ja. Duk ja in a not sarcastic statement.

Duk ja in a declarative statement. Take sound, it's changing because it's made, okay? The duk ja, what you're trying to prove, is that sound is changing.

One plus two. Take sound, it's changing because it's made. So one plus two is called the duk ja, or the thing you're trying to prove.

In Western logic, it's called the, what's it called? Assertion. Assertion, you can say assertion, okay?

I believe the selwa in a kyep statement, in a sarcastic statement, is again the first two things. Are you telling me, or sorry, it is true that blue is a rang tsen, real thing in the world, okay? It is true.

Nu, nu means obvious, okay? All right, so in a normal logical statement, we have three necessary relationships. In a tengyur, they kind of change around.

Okay, in a sarcastic statement, they kind of change around. But he says, look, those two are true. Okay, it is true that blue is an actual object.

Okay, here's duk ja. Djorwa here means yukta, which means what? Nick, yukta.

Yeah, syllogism. Yeah, syllogism. Yeah.

Nick's statement in Nick's last book was called the 60 yukta, the 60 arguments, okay? Who is that beautiful Portuguese lady? Come here, Amelie.

Oops, I guess she might have wanted to say hi. Hi, boo-boo. Don't squash your father.

Don't squash your father. We need him. Okay, you can squash him.

He said, bon dia. Nick, I think you got to shave the beard because she's confusing you with Djoru, with the dog. Stay down.

Okay, okay. Since we're not sure about that last segment, let's go on. 414, Anam.

Matrudna, dera taw, dun dam chö che kyi tse me, dun che par shaway chir. Good. And here we have his definition, his description of ultimately able to perform a function.

So finally, we got the ultimately part. What's the difference between ultimately able to perform a function and just able to perform a function? And he says here, if it is confirmed as performing a function by dun dam chö che kyi tse me, yeah, it's an object of a direct perception, which is a form of ultimate analysis.

If you're checking, is this real or not, and you come up with a yes, then that thing is ultimately functioning. If you use ultimate forms of reasoning to confirm that something is doing something, then that function of it is ultimate. Cool?

And it means, when we say ultimate forms of reasoning, it's you're checking, is this thing real or not? It's not just a normal perception. It's a perception where in the back of your mind, you're checking, is this thing real or not?

And it's very important in the establishment of the two realities. In the higher schools. So here, you're getting used to it.

You're getting used to it. It's a frame of mind where you are checking if something is real or not. It's one thing to see a cup.

It's another thing to think about whether it's real. Or it's one thing to see that the cup, to think that the cup is performing a function. It's another thing to look into that function and say, is it ultimately real?

Different thing. You can look at a door and not be mistaken. Then you can look at a door at the same time and be mistaken about where it came from.

You can look at a pen and not be mistaken. It is a pen. But if you feel that it's coming from its own side, then ultimately speaking, it's not real.

Okay, got it? Different, right? Okay, all right.

Next sentence, Uncle Adam. Dear Thao, ngun sum tse may der shaway chir. Yeah, if something is confirmed.

Okay, tse ma means pramana. Say pramana. Pramana.

Yeah, confirmation, perception. Correct perception. Okay, correct perception.

If something is confirmed by direct perception, your eyes, your ears, your nose, okay? You're listening to your own thoughts, okay? If something is confirmed by direct perception, then what it sees is always ultimately real, ultimately functional also.

Hmm. Did he just directly equate ngun sum tse ma with dun dam jay?

[Speaker 3]
Yes, exactly.

[Speaker 1]
In this school, in this school, yes. That's what I was saying, sorry. If you can see a thing with your...

By the way, we're not talking deduction. It was eliminated. When he said ngun sum, we eliminated deduction.

So we're not talking about truth that you come to realize are true through a process of reasoning. We're not talking about that. He says, if you see something with your direct senses, then that's ultimately functioning, and it's ultimately real, okay?

Got it? And he's eliminating, he's cutting out indirect perceptions, which is logic. You know, he's not talking about that.

So apparently, in this school, if you confirm something with a direct form of accurate perception, then it must be ultimately functioning and ultimately real, okay? Where does that leave karma? Say again?

Are these synonyms, ultimate analysis and direct perception in this school? They're not synonyms. Yeah, I think you could say they are yin kyap nyam.

What's that mean, Kramer? Yin kyap nyam. To be one is to be the other, necessarily.

Yeah, there's nothing in one category. Yeah, there's nothing in one category that's not in the other category, and there's nothing in the other category that's not in this category, okay? I think you could say that in this school.

But did he ever say dendampe dsema? He talked about dendampe, like ultimate objects, right? Well, he did mention here, I think dendam je je kye dsema, you know?

Oh, okay. An accurate perception which explores the actual reality of a thing, yeah. Ah, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

In an ultimate way. And in this school, direct perception is that. In the higher schools, in Madhyamaka, a totally different thing.

You have to think about the emptiness of the thing to come to its ultimate nature. In this school, if it's perceivable with your direct senses, like colors, then those colors are ultimately real. And that's what the world thinks.

That's, you know, are you sure? Yeah, I saw it with my own eyes, you know? That's the same, exactly the same thing.

Ultimately real. I saw it with my own eyes, okay? Cool?

Not that I figured it out. I figured out it should be like that. That's not very strong.

Okay. Is the implication here, boss, that if I want to do ultimate analysis on an object that I would partly go about it by asking whether or not there's a direct accurate perception? Yeah, you could say that, in this school.

Yeah, I keep saying in this school. Which school of the four? Second school.

Yeah, second school. All right, 416, Adam, can you read it? Yes, sir.

,SDU LA KHA PA YOD PA'I RGYUD ZIN ,'OG TU DGE PAR ZHES PAR BYA'O Yeah, so his author, who is who? ,SKYE DU RJE Yeah, his author, which is one of the two great disciples of Je Tsongkapa. He says, I have just told you that if you can see something with a direct perception, it is ultimately real.

And if you want to know why is the case, ,OG TU ZHES I'll tell you later. Okay, that's what Geshe Michael does. I'll tell you later.

So he's my brother. Okay, nice, 417, Adam. I mean, we got to hold him to it, right?

I'm sure, Adam, by the time he finishes this book in 2095, he's going to make sure that SKYE DU RJE explains that later. I'll make a note. Do you want to have someone else read, Adam?

Because your reading is boringly good. Yeah, Word, would you mind picking one of your students, please? Can you do that?

Sure. I pick Claudia. Can you go, Claudia?

Oh, no. Uh-oh. Okay, SHEPA KACHI TAME THAN DUL.

Adam, Adam, can you correct as we go? Yes, sir.

[Speaker 3]
Please.

[Speaker 1]
Excuse me, can you say again? Yes, DUL. DUL?

Okay. REN.

[Speaker 3]
REN.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. CHOK. CHOK.

CHIK. CHAK. CHEH.

MEDPARANG. THAN DUL. DO.

PADANG. BUMPARANG. THAN MA.

DIMPAR. DOGPAR. DOGPARANG.

Can you help me with that, please? Yeah, DOGPARANG. GELTE.

Okay, DOGPARANG. GELTE. SHEPA.

KACHI. TAME. DIMPAR DULMA.

JOT. TAME. MEDNA.

JIKTEN. JIKAM. NASHEPA.

Oh, that's JIK, JIKTEN JIK. Sorry, yeah, JIKTEN JIKAM. Nah.

It's okay. Nah, JIKTEN JIKAM. Okay, okay.

NASHEPA. KACHI. TAME.

DIGLA. MED PAR DAG LO. Yeah, that was great.

[Speaker 3]
Nice, really.

[Speaker 1]
Another star of word school. Okay. Yeah, you started out very well.

It is contradictory to believe that SHEPA. KACHI. TAME.

DIMPAR DULMA. Okay, good. Adam, what's SHEPA.

KACHI. TAME? What's SHEPA.

KACHI. TAME? Indivisible moments of consciousness.

Yeah, which is the mental equivalent of a, of a, an actual object, yeah. Or an atom or something like that. Yeah, of a physical atom.

Okay, indivisible. Okay, ATAM in English. ATAM, the Sanskrit roots are, and Greek root is ATAM means indivisible.

Cannot be split. A means not, like apathetic or agnostic or, okay? And then TAM means splittable.

Okay, so ATAM means unsplittable. Meaning once you split it, it doesn't behave the same ever. That's the smallest you can get and still function as that thing.

When you can split it into smaller pieces, they don't function as that thing. They don't function as oxygen once you split them, something like that. So SHEPA, KACHI, TAME is the mental equivalent of what?

Daughtering joke. Yeah, of an atom. Okay, ATAM.

What indivisible moment of consciousness. And there's no shorter moment of consciousness. In less time, you cannot perceive something.

The mind cannot perceive something in less time than that. So it's one unit of consciousness in the same way that we have units of physical matter called atoms. It's a mental atom.

Okay, cool. So SHEPA, KACHI, TAME, indivisible moment of consciousness. Because if you split it smaller, you can't perceive something.

It's not enough time to get a perception. And DUL CHEN CHOG GI CHAG ZHES MED. What's that, Atom?

DUL CHEN CHOG GI CHAG ZHES MED. Heartless atoms. Yeah, and it emphasizes here, CHOG GI CHAG MED.

By the way, the SHE is just part of the word CHA. It's not the word for consciousness. S-H-A-S is just peace.

It means a peace. So what's the CHOG emphasize? I feel like a side, right?

Or like a... Yeah, exactly, exactly. Eastern part or western part or...

Yeah, the left or the right. Beginning of the atom? Yeah.

Yeah, the left or the right side of an atom. Okay, the left or the right side of an atom. If you go too far down, the left side becomes the right side.

And then there's no room for an atom in between. Okay? When you get down to the smallest you can do, and you can't split anymore, it means that the left side would become the right side and the thing would disappear.

So that's what it means here, indivisible. We say partless, or you can say directionless, okay? Get down to the smallest atom, it still has a left and right side.

If you went smaller, left and right would disappear. And then you couldn't build things out of that, right? Okay, so we're talking about the foundational building blocks of both what and what?

Is it called mental? Yeah, consciousness and physical things. We're talking about the ultimately tiny building blocks of consciousness, time, small, and atoms, physical, small.

CHE SHES MED PA RANG MTSAN DUG PA Now, are those smallest units of thinking and the smallest units of stuff, would you say they are RANG MTSAN or PHYID MTSAN? Are they actual things in the world, or are they just concepts? They're RANG MTSAN, sure.

They're actual things, yeah. If you split them, I'd say you're getting into theoretical stuff, you know? Okay, got it?

If you take the smallest piece of a thing, whether it's a thought or a physical thought, and then you split it into two, then you're getting into theoretical things. But up and down to that point, I'd say they're still RANG MTSAN in this school. Again, I mean, that's still kind of an interesting question, though, because, I mean, you can't have a direct perception of a single atom.

I mean, they're too small, but you can... They would say that a Buddha does. They would say that a Buddha does, yeah, or people like that, okay?

They would say it's a sheja, or a shelja, which means it's a knowable thing, at least by an omniscient being, okay? NAM KING SHEL JA. Okay, so if you say that those smallest parts of consciousness, of a stream of consciousness, and those smallest parts of a cup, if you say they are actual things in the world, then how could you ever say that boombas are not actual things in the world?

What's a boomba? You could say a coffee cup, okay? If you say that the smallest part of a coffee cup is an actual thing in the world and not a theoretical thing, then for God's sake, how can you say...

If you say the atom of a cup is a real thing in the world, how on earth can you say the cup is not a real thing in the world, okay? That's us. RANG SRED YIN POR BSDOD PA'ANG RGYAL TE But you said it wasn't, okay?

You got to a point. By the way, you ready? You ready?

Yes, sir. Did he ever say coffee cups were not actual things in the world? What about the group of coffee cups that includes clay cups and metal cups?

The chi. That's a chi, man. Then it's a chi, too.

Then coffee cups switches to a theoretical thing. The group called coffee cups in the universe is a concept. Once you say I'm thinking about the mother group that physical coffee cups, that ceramic coffee cups belong to, and the mother group that metal coffee cups belong to, when you say it that way, then coffee cup is a concept, okay?

Then coffee cup is a concept, okay? Got it? That's what we're flirting with here.

Is coffee cup an actual thing in the world or is it a concept? By the way, that's why in languages like English, we use a or the. Is a coffee cup an actual thing in the world?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Is coffee cup an actual thing in the world? No, it's a group.

It's a name. It's a concept. Okay, we've got it?

Okay, now, why are we talking about this stuff? By the time you get to the highest school of Buddhism, they will say there's no difference, but not at this school, okay? By the time you get to the highest school, they will say that the ceramic coffee cup in your hand and coffee cup have equal reality.

They're both coming from your seeds, okay? And in that sense, the world becomes an idea. The world becomes a projection of your mind, okay?

And then you change. Yes? Sorry, again, I didn't mean to cut you off.

I thought you were- No, we're done. We're done. I'm done pontificating.

So do we want to leave it ambiguous or should I put these in quotes here to distinguish? Wow, that's a tough question. I'll leave it up to the translator right now.

I would not use them because it's too obvious. Okay, yeah. It's kind of like telling the punchline before you let the other person get confused.

Yeah. Okay, all right. DBANG RGYAL TE Let's go to the next part.

ZHES PA SKAD CIG BYAMS MED YIN PA DUS MA YOD DAM MED What's that mean? Either consciousness... ZHES PA SKAD CIG BYAMS MED YIN PA This is a question, right?

Because it says YOD DAM MED, what's YOD DAM MED mean? Either it exists or not. Does it exist or not?

Does it exist or not? YOD DAM MED, say YOD DAM MED. YOD DAM MED DAM means or.

Okay, YOD DAM MED. Okay, does it exist or not? What's he asking?

ZHES PA SKAD CIG BYAMS MED ZHES PA SKAD CIG BYAMS MED means partless moment of awareness. Partless moment of the stream of awareness. Okay, the atom of mind.

The atom of the flow of your mind, okay? And then he says something difficult, Adam. He says a YIN PA after that, which makes it in English, something which is.

Is there a difference between a partless moment of the mind and an example of the partless moment of the mind? Is there a difference? I'll say it again.

Is there a difference between partless moment of the mind and something which is a partless moment of the mind? Is there a difference between those two things? Yeah.

There is a subtle difference, okay? The second one means you're pointing to something. Okay, I'll say it again.

Partless moment of the mind. It could be a concept. It could be just an idea.

But if I say something which is a partless moment of the mind then that becomes a definite RANG BTZIN. That becomes a real thing in the world. When I say something which is, it makes it more RANG BTZIN.

It makes it more real thing in the world. So it's very delicate translation here. The YIN PA is very delicate.

How you translate it. In Tibetan, YIN PA creates an adjectival clause, which is, something which is, like that, okay? MED PA YIN PA, DUS MA YOD RANG MED And then he says, are there DUS MA or not?

What's DUS MA, Adam? Multiple, many. Yeah, are there or are there not multiple cases of, then he said, things about which you can say it's a moment of consciousness.

Are there multiple examples in the universe or not? I hope there are, because otherwise only one person is understanding my sentence. Are there multiple occurrences in the universe of things which we can point to as smallest moments of mental flow?

Yeah, no, of course there are. There's countless actually. ,'JIG RTEN GYI GANG LA ZHES PA SKYES BYAS BYAMS PA'I, ,'CHIG PA'I MED PAR THAL ROL, But according to you, yeah, if you say no, there are not, there's only one example in the universe of something which is the shortest moment of mind.

Okay, why would he say that? Why would he say there's only one? Why would he ever say there's only one shortest moment of mind?

[Speaker 2]
Do you have another type?

[Speaker 1]
As a concept.

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
As a concept, okay? The idea that there's a, the idea of an atom or the idea of an atom of the mind, okay? That's only one.

And then there's your partless moment of mind, there's your partless moment of mind. They all belong to partless moment of mind. Got it?

Quote, partless moment of mind. Everybody in this room is having a partless moment of mind, I hope. And they all belong to the big category called partless moments of mind.

Or you can say, quote, partless moment of mind. Okay, got it? Okay.

Then we say, me na, okay? If you say there are no individual instances of partless moment of mind, okay? Then the conclusion is, jik ten gyi kam na.

What's that mean? In this whole world. Yeah, Adam translated it correctly.

Jik ten gyi kam na. In this whole world. Shepa kye chik chak mey chik mey merpa talok.

There must not be, no, what it means is, there must not be chik le me, more than one partless moment of mind. Okay? If you say a particular instance of partless moment of mind is the only one, okay?

Then there cannot be all these partless moments of mind going on in people's minds in this world, okay? If you're talking about the general category, and you're not talking about specific instances, then there's only one. Yeah, okay?

All right. Very difficult topic. But, and some people, what did we call Adam's last book for $100?

Not Adam, you can't say. What's the title of Adam's last book? The Door to Emptiness.

Oh, Nick, that's not fair. You're the boss of the whole thing. I won't take the money.

Okay, we'll give it to Amalie. Okay, a hundred bucks for Amalie. Yeah, and that's a famous, famous idea, that the second school is the door to the fourth school.

Okay? The second school, thinking about things logically, is the door to the highest emptiness. Okay, cool.

And you can see how they're getting close, right? And it's beautiful. All right, let's keep going, Adam.

We still got some time here, unfortunately for you. Oh, I'm enjoying it. So I've been wanting clarification.

Oh, okay. Okay. Please have someone read, Adam, and please correct them so Grandpa can have some coffee.

Word, sir? Do you mind choosing another one of your very well-practiced students? Don't mind at all.

Svetlana?

[Speaker 3]
Okay, thank you, Dr. Barbara. YUN NA ZHES PA'I DNGOS DKA' GCIG BYAMS PA'I CHU CHEN GYUR CI TSEN YIN PAR DAG RANG GI ZAL BA LA BYAS DROD BYED PA'I PHYIR Yeah, nice.

[Speaker 1]
And word, sorry, Adam translated it well. By the way, I was having a debate the other day with somebody. When I'm not translating, I'm fundraising.

That's how I spend my life. My wife wants to know if she can have a few minutes of my time. I said, no, I have to fundraise.

So I spend, what, 75% of my time fundraising and 25%. So I was having a debate with somebody about, should I fundraise for stupas or should I fundraise for translators? And they're like, oh, stupas are going to last longer.

You should fundraise for stupas. And I said, you know what I think about? The translators will last longer.

That's what happened in the world so far. The sutras and the tantras, they survived for two and a half thousand years. The old, you know, like Buddha is a mere 1,800 or is 800 years old.

These big pyramids and stuff, they don't last as long as a lineage, okay? And so I would say if the thing is that you want something that's going to last a long time, I'll invest in Word, or I'll invest in Nick teaching DCI or something like that, Stanley teaching Innovator Retreats, Xiaoping starting a university. Those things will survive.

I think the trend, what do you call it? The lineage of knowledge will survive longer than concrete things. I think so, okay?

So, you know, if I have to fundraise for one or the other, I'll do both. Okay. All right, please, please.

Well, it's also tacky to have a half-built stupa. Yeah. Oh, so yeah.

YOD NA SHES PA RGYAS BYAS BYAMS CHUD CHEN Let's take a single partless moment of consciousness. Is it partless? It's not partless, but if you split it, it loses its identity.

If you split an atom, it can no longer function as that element. That's the definition of an atom pretty much, okay? You can split an oxygen atom, but when you split it, it might become a metal or something like that, okay?

You can't breathe it, okay? All right, SHES PA RGYAS BYAS BYAMS CHUD CHEN Let's take a partless moment of stream of consciousness. RGYAL GYI CHUD CHEN YIN PA LTA'O We go up.

That means I believe it. RGYAL GYI CHUD CHEN YIN PA LTA'O That partless moment of consciousness is too a general idea and not a thing in the world. Whoa, who said that?

Did you just say Geshe-la, it had to be a thing in the world? Not if you don't say YIN PA. And now this guy says, yeah, of course it's a general idea.

Of course it's a concept. What? The shortest moment that your mind functions is a general idea.

What the heck are you talking about? Yes, it is, because it, and Adam translated this perfectly, it subsumes its members, okay? Coffee cup subsumes ceramic and metal cups.

So coffee cup, as the name of the category, is a concept, and it's no longer something you can touch. Once something has members, it's an idea. Once something is a set, a set header, once it has members of the set, the name of the set becomes a theoretical thing, and it's no longer something you can hold in your hand.

You cannot hold coffee cup in your hand. You can hold a coffee cup in your hand. A coffee cup is a member of all the coffee cups, but coffee cups, you can't hold.

It's a general idea of all the cups in the universe. Cool? So this guy says, oh, let's take that timeless moment of mind.

Okay. It's not real. You can't point to it.

Why? What are you talking about? Because it has its members.

There's Stanley's shortest moment of mind. There's Lindsay's shortest moment of mind. Therefore, quote, shortest moment of mind cannot be an actual thing in the world, because it has members, okay?

It's a set and not a member of a set. Once something is a set, it's an idea. Okay, cool?

No, no, no. Yes, sir. All right.

GYAB SEL DNGOS Yeah, again, provisionally, we're talking about the necessary relationship here. Okay, if something has members, then it has to be a general thing. It has to be a general group or a concept, okay?

And it is true that it is true. I'm not sure about the SEL part. I'm still working on it.

Okay. Keep going, Adam. We still have some time.

I don't know. Yeah. Don't waste three minutes in your life.

Yeah, we had the GYAB SEL DNGOS included in the argument that it was referring to above. Should I take 4.19 and put that with 4.18? Oh, that's a good question.

No, I would not. Okay, so should I split the other one? Because it's implied that he said DANG MA GRUB after CHIR.

Should I split the other one out from 4.14, then? Yeah, you could do that. I'm not sure.

I'd have to go look at it, but probably. If it says CHIR in front of it. Okay.

Okay. So 4.20. Svetlana, can you help me a second? Say again?

I was just asking Svetlana if she minded me. All right, go ahead, Stepan. Tuk Tuk.

[Speaker 3]
KHYO IN DU MA YOK YANG RANG GI SEL VA LA JE DRO CHE PAR MI DRUG NA. BUM PANG RANG GI SEL VA LA JE DRO CHE PAR GANG GI DRUG LAG PAR SONG CHIG.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's a good one. Do you mind reading 4.20 for us, too? You gotta go back.

We're gonna punish you. You have to do those 17. Sorry, yeah.

SHE PA KA CHIG CHA ME YIN NA. 4.20. Backwards, Svetlana. Yeah, this one.

The one that I have slided, can you see it? I'm sorry, it was about my screen. Okay, okay, here we go.

MA DRUG NA KHYO YIN DU MA YOD PA'I BU. Good. Yeah, and I like that you said blow here.

BU is an ancient verb for what you do with a trumpet. I say, pa-tu-ru, okay? BU, but it also means pa-tu, okay?

That's what it means here, logically. Okay, BU, it means it must not be true, okay? So MA DRUG NA, is it true that coffee cup has many members?

Yes. Yeah, okay. Why?

Because there's many things that are in. Okay, there's many things that are coffee cups. That's all it says.

If you say that's not a set with its own members, you're wrong. Why? Because your idea is patooed by the fact that there's many things which are coffee cups.

In this case, it was many things which are, what was it? Generals or something, I don't know. Partless moments in life.

Partless moments in life, yep, okay. Okay, now, Adam, we're ready to go to the next, yeah? Couldn't it go the other way?

Like, if he's saying you blow your position by saying there are many, he's saying that if you treat coffee cups as a group, then you're treating it as one. Oh, no, yeah. I mean, a better translation here of 4.2.0 would be there are many things which are it. There are many things which are it. There are many examples of things which are partless moments of mind. There's ones in Stanley's head, there's ones in Rob's head, okay?

There are many things which are it. Okay, kyu yinpa du ma yupa, okay? But they're, oh, I see.

If you say the category called partless moments of mind doesn't have many members, I disagree. Your argument is blown by the fact that there are many things which are examples of partless moments of mind. So yinpa here means which are examples of, okay?

Which are real examples of. Cool. Don't cry, Adam, but it's time to stop.

And now this is where Geshe-la goes and sits down and relaxes and Adam leads a discussion of an impossible subject which is how would you use this in your real life with your daughter? Okay, bye. Bye, again, thank you.

Adam, you might wanna come out of your screen and then people, then you can, whoever's pinning people can unpin grandpa since you're not up here in the room. Oh. Oh, geez.

Okay, can you see me? Yeah. All right, let me go full screen here.

Yeah, so there was a few things. I think when we first started off class, we started off kind of looking at the concept of dun-dim-par-dun-che, dun-dim-par-che-che, which is an ultimate analysis, right? So I always like to go to the kitchen to think about, like we were looking, we were specifically talking about how to qualify the term ultimately and exactly what that means in this school.

And Geshe-la had said that they're trying to get, it's possible that he's trying to get us accustomed to looking at the, to thinking about things from the perspective of deceptive reality and ultimate reality. So when we look at a coffee cup in the second school, there's a certain nature that we think it holds. When we perceive our coffee cups directly, we can say that that's in the direct perception, which is, sorry, sorry.

Let me think about this for a second. So the ultimate analysis part is kind of what I'm trying to hone in here, right? Like when we think about a coffee cup or our husband that's in the kitchen, they're appearing to us.

I mean, they have color, they have shape. We're seeing some form in front of us, but there's a qualifying nature that our mind has to do to check whether or not that exists on an ultimate level. And I think that's probably what I took away most from this class so far today.

But I would be open to hearing how you guys interpreted that as well. I'm struggling, Adam, to think about the significance. Something in the back of my head is saying that there's something about knowing what we can change and what we can't change, what's stuck in our life and what's not stuck.

And while it seems very broad when we talk about the higher school, that the realm of ideas are easy to change and we can replace one idea with another idea even in this school, but everything that we say in this lower school, ultimately exists or ultimately performs a function. These are all things that change in dependence on causes. And so I think this school is trying to give us hope that we can make changes.

We can look at the causes of our emotions, the causes of our experiences, the causes of our interactions, of the things we can see and feel directly and behave differently, act differently, interact with the world differently. And anything you can see directly can be different because it's caused. And all you have to do to see a different world is change the causes of the things that you can see.

Yeah. I think that's kind of, yeah, sometimes I realize that I leave some things out for context. And that's kind of what I was trying to drill on when I was saying, the husband in the kitchen has a certain form.

We have to learn to distinguish between its deceptive nature and its ultimate nature. And I think that's really what was taken away from that ultimate analysis part was we learned to remind ourselves that things are coming from causes and conditions and that we can use that to then program the world that we want in the future. That it's all malleable, right?

Yeah. Yeah, I think so. Ina.

Ina.

[Speaker 3]
Hi. Good morning. Hi, Adam.

Hi, Ben. Hi, good morning. I was thinking about something.

I mean, I'm Ukrainian and I have a lot of friends and relatives in Ukraine. And yesterday I started like a free marathon for Ukrainians to help to understand what they can do when everything goes really bad, using SID system and also my knowledge of psychotherapy also. And people, they are writing in personal messages that even though they understand the system, like the moment that a rocket hits somewhere, like this moment, they are not capable of thinking where it comes from.

And they kind of need thousands of different ways to prove to themselves that the reality lies, you know? And I think, sorry, translators, I just planted bad seeds for myself with the future translations. But I was thinking that, because I talk a lot and try to explain that the reality lies, that you can change the reality by changing your mind and especially avoiding your mental affliction, which is, believe me, is not easy when your house was destroyed, when somewhere your love was killed or raped and try to stick to the teachings, right?

And I think the way that when you go to find this indivisible thing that is actually divisible is very powerful because any person can relate to. I mean, it is easy to explain. Like at the very least, I see people understand more when you show how this stuff that we all believe in, right?

I mean, with a scientific worldview, to me, it is very difficult not to stop believing in atomic particles because everything feels real, right? And it is, but not the way I think. So I was thinking that we could create an instrument, something like divisible indivisible and make a picture of the atom, you know, that is split and then you have quarks and something, that was my idea.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Thank you for that, Ina. It is.

I couldn't imagine having my worldview tested more than I think the country of Ukraine is some of the things that are going on. I couldn't imagine trying to eat my worldview as some of that stuff is happening. Ina, may I ask some questions?

Please, yeah. It's a little debate I want to have with you guys.

[Speaker 2]
So, well, number one is, so in this school, the only real thing is the working thing, changing thing, right?

[Speaker 1]
And, but he also says the, and they have to be confirmed by the direct perception.

[Speaker 2]
So if we go back to the kitchen and see the husband, we actually don't see the husband, we see his body. We don't, but we cannot really see the husband, which has his body and mind, which is the husband we want to change. But in this school, is that husband an idea or an actual thing?

[Speaker 1]
I mean, you could say that the husband, right? Cause you have, you've got dimple. So what's the third category of changing thing?

Well, neither, right? Both, it's neither physical nor mental. I would say it's the concept of a husband.

Yeah, I would place that husband into that category.

[Speaker 2]
So it's a changing? Well, but we just said all the concepts in this school is unchanging. Didn't we?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
The husband is never changed. So you can never change your husband or your wife.

[Speaker 1]
Not that.

[Speaker 2]
Not that husband.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. I mean, we all want to change our husband or wife place, but so that's my question.

[Speaker 2]
In this school, and it's funny cause this school emphasis on logic so much, but they are also saying in this school that logic doesn't establish real things.

[Speaker 1]
Well, maybe there's a difference between a chi and a chi tzen. Okay. Yeah, so I think chi tzens are reliant on would be projections, right?

And then chi's aren't necessarily projections that they're just categories. Wait.

[Speaker 2]
I'm not just talking to Adam, but what do you guys think? What's the solution of changing husbands in this school?

[Speaker 1]
So that didn't make sense. I mean, do you want me to clarify a little bit more or did that seem totally unrelated? Lindsey said, can you give an example of what you just said?

Yeah, like we have the category of coffee cups, right? The category of coffee cups would be a chi, right? And then when you have an actual coffee cup that you're examining, like an actual coffee cup that you're looking at, you've got the physical thing that you're holding as an object in your mind, right?

As a shell, like a shell jaw. And then the mental image that you have of that thing is a chi tzen. So what I'm saying is that there, and I've been exploring this idea, right?

Like this is something that I've come up because I've been trying to study my text more in depth in between classes so I can understand what's going on. And something that I've run into that KJJ presents that there is a difference between a chi and a chi tzen. And so that's what I'm trying to hone in on right now.

I don't know if that necessarily, I don't know if there is a way that we could apply that to the husband that you're talking about wanting to change, but I'm thinking that we could probably examine it from that perspective.

[Speaker 2]
Can we say at least a tsok chi, right? Would be an example of a changing thing that is also a type of chi. It's a collection of stuff.

And just like a coffee cup, there's the idea of coffee cup is a concept, but then there's a physical coffee cup, which is a collection of physical material. And then there's a husband in the kitchen and we could talk about husbands in the kitchen as an idea, but we could talk about a guy who's a collection of his physical body and his mind stream, his moments of mind, which I can't see directly, but Buddhas can see atoms directly, then Buddhas can see moments of mind directly.

[Speaker 1]
And so we can say the husband in the kitchen is a selection of stuff, changing stuff.

[Speaker 2]
If we include mind as stuff, which technically is part of our proof for why we must go on, because there's a stuff called mind that's not like any other stuff and it can only produce more of itself. And you were saying that a husband can be seen, for example, by Buddha directly. So it's a real thing in this school.

Are you saying that? I am provisionally going to say that people, I don't know, I'm really excited to find out. I'm gonna make that argument for now.

So I'm very much prepared to find out that I'm wrong. Let's say that people exist because they are that third category of changing things, which are neither physical nor mental.

[Speaker 1]
And if that's true, I'm pretty sure only changing thing, that a changing thing has to be an ultimate existence in this school, I think.

[Speaker 2]
I think that's it.

[Speaker 1]
Stanley, thank you for the interesting debate that you're bringing up. Keep them coming. And now it's time for us to shift focus over to the Peachtree World News.

But again, I just wanna give a quick thank you. Thank you so much, Keshe Michael. Of course, we'd be nowhere without you and this program is amazing and we're so grateful.

Thank you, Adam, for all the research you're doing and this text and trying to unlock it for us all and the great class. And I just wanna thank everybody for coming. And again, if you haven't yet, please join the Good Night Club.

You can scan these QR codes. There will be some links in the chat momentarily. That's if you wanna join.

This is a club where you get books sent to you. You get a valise bag or an attache, as it were, to store your electronics before you turn in for the night so that you can stop exposing your mind to electrical things and blue light before you go to bed. And it's a cool club and it supports our efforts to last longer than stupas.

Thank you for that, Keshe Michael, because that is indeed our plan, to be part of a lineage that has existed since before stupas and will continue after. Just a moment, darling. So thank you very much.

And Hasso, thank you for the Peachtree World News. Those of you who would like to learn more Tibetan, please stay tuned for class with Maureen Smith after that.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you very much, Nick. And there is a special message for Adam before he runs away. Maybe he already did.

Okay, great. Geshe-la say to please translate the next five sections. No problem.

Next five parts. Already got it done. Okay, awesome.

So yeah, thank you very much for the class. I don't know if I got it very well today, but I like this idea. It was interesting to me to think about this.

It seems to me that there is like a cheats and sandwich because it's like the reality we can perceive. It's like here, right? Like here, like things we can see with our senses.

But Geshe-la was saying if we go down and then we divide like the smallest part that can be divided, we go again into the realm of ideas. So here we have ideas, then we have things, but then if we go up and to the categories, again, we go to the realm of ideas. So it seems that things that work are built by ideas and take us to ideas.

I don't know. I just find it interesting. Maybe it's like a little route to go to higher schools.

I don't know, but then I will invite you all to stay tuned and see what happens next.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, maybe, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
It's like a cheats and grilled cheese, please. Cheats and sandwich. Yeah, because it's like in between, right?

In the ideas and in the undivisible divisions. So we are surrounded by cheats and sandwiches. And speaking of that, that doesn't have anything to do, we want to talk a little bit about, we have a lot of materials that people share with us about the projects that we're doing for the new year event we just had, but that time we didn't have time to finish them all.

So we wanna give ourselves some time to keep checking what they are doing. They are very cool projects that some of them have happened already in just last year, some of them still happening, and they are gonna have some cool events. So in order to keep going with that, we want to celebrate and show you, share with you some of these projects.

So here we go. We're gonna keep going with a few of these projects and Gina, thank you very much, is gonna help us sharing the first video so you can see.

[Speaker 1]
♪ This is the way the day will be ♪ ♪ This is the way everybody wanna be ♪ ♪ Girl I will love you forever ♪ ♪ Forever, forever, forever ♪ ♪ Girl I will love you forever ♪ ♪ Forever, forever, forever ♪ ♪ Girl I will love you forever ♪ ♪ Forever, forever, forever ♪ ♪ Girl I will love you forever ♪ ♪ Forever, forever, forever ♪

[Speaker 2]
♪ Girl I will love you forever ♪ ♪ Forever, forever, forever ♪

[Speaker 3]
We are also deeply grateful to many friends for their immense support and recommendations to companies and organizations. Now, our plans for 2024 include the cooperation with the University in Hof, Germany to scientifically prove the efficiency and the benefits of our programs. The results might be of interest to larger companies that care about the mental health of their employees.

We also have a promising contact with the University of Basel in Switzerland and hope for further studies and collaborations on our unique programs. And we start a children's meditation program in a German school. We hope we will reach many people because everything starts with the mind.

Peace and creativity, new ideas for a better economy, and mental and even physical health.

[Speaker 1]
My dear friends, we wish you the happiest New Year.

[Speaker 2]
So happy New Year. And remember, we soon are going to be celebrating the Asian New Year. So, yeah, basically we are still in the season of New Year's.

Stay tuned. We're going to have an event next week or Friday night. We will invite you in short.

But before that, well, I think this project was very cool. If you're interested into exploring the scientific side of meditation, how you can justify it in the daily life world and how to use it in like institutions, business and corporations kind of thing. Contact them because I think they are growing.

They are excited to start with new projects. Contact Sylvia or other members of MSI. Thank you very much for sending us your material.

And soon we will be talking to them more in depth. For now, we want to check two more projects. We're almost there.

I think we can make it. One more is Sky Harvest. Oh, well, before Sky Harvest, Diamond Mine Academy.

It's short. So now, you know, if you're in Germany or Vienna, it's a cool place to go. I mean, a cool organization to contact.

I think Peter Mortel and Max Zomting is like they are.

[Speaker 3]
They are.

[Speaker 2]
What's his name? Dumbali? Jabali.

Max Jabali. They are organizing these things so you can contact them and it looks cool. I think they are going to have a very fun retreat soon or something.

So check it out if you are in the area, Vienna, Germany. And now we go all the way to the other side of the world with this project, Sky Harvest. Yeah, very beautiful project.

If you are interested in spending some time in nature, helping Diamond Mountain Retreat Center, helping the environment, it's great. I have had the chance to participate there. It's very fun and it's very healing time, I think, you can spend in nature.

Plus, you get to know the retreat center, which is amazing. Beautiful, beautiful place to do retreat. If you ever are thinking about it, I think it's a great, great, great conducive place.

Then lastly, I know we're a little bit over, but we have one last video. And it's something very cool that just happened in Kyoto. And Mr. Sugeng is organizing this. And they have very soon other events happening in March. So let's check it out. Wow.

So thank you, Sugeng. Kyoto looks amazing. Maybe one day I can go.

So now the other thing is like, just to remember, they're going to have a program starting on the 23rd of February. So if you are interested, just contact them. So, yeah, I think lastly, we just want to keep inviting you to the event you're going to have next week.

Well, if you are in American continent, it's happening on Friday the 9th, February. If you are in Asia, it's happening on Saturday the 10th in the morning, 10 a.m. So don't go out too long. You can come to the program in the morning and see you there.

You can use the QR code to register. It's going to be very cool, very fun, interesting content, very cool materials. We're going to have a special guest.

If you are into Chinese medicine or Asian medicine, we're going to have a special segment on it. We're going to have a special segment on what it means to be entering the dragon year. We're going to have a special class with Geshe Michael about taking control over our own destiny.

So be there. Thank you very much. And we go back to Ward Smith for more Tibetan.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you.